# The Lies of Richard Dawkins, Episode 6: Saint Thomas Aquinas **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 12, 2009, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591 "2009-02-12T20:54:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/101 "2009-02-14T03:24:45Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > The problem with that, though, is that the distinction between natural and ‘non-natural’ world is a rather arbitrary one, and so the contradiction has only been shifted to a slightly more subtle level, implying that ‘everything that exists, exists within the natural world’ and ‘god doesn’t exist within the natural world’. It seems to me that all the ‘everything but god’ arguments suffer from this. I don’t really get what you are saying here. Can you elaborate a bit more? What I would say though is that God, especially a God that creates the natural world, cannot be a part of the natural world. This is fundamental to the definition of what it means to be a God. I agree that there are no Gods that exist as part of the natural world. Luckily though that type of God is not the one that Aquinas had in mind Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/102 "2009-02-14T03:33:07Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > If Aquinas’s proof demonstrates anything–and I’m not sure it does, but if it does–it is that there was some first cause. If he wants to assign three letters to stand for this, that’s his right, but without any additional proofs it is a terrible equivocation to use “god” as the symbol to stand for the first cause, because we all know what “god” means and this proof doesn’t go anywhere towards it. Well, to be fair to Aquinas, the first cause proof doesn’t exist in isolation. It’s one part of a multiple book work where he tries to argue that all of Catholic teaching is compatable with Aristotelian logic. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/103 "2009-02-14T03:33:56Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > No, there is no contradiction. Implicit in the proofs is the distinction between God, who exists outside of nature and as such has no preceding thing, and the natural world for which there is always a preceding thing. Essentially what Aquinas said was that if you say that the natural world is all there is, then in trying to explain how things are now you end up with a problem of an infinite number of causes and effects. The only way to resolve this is to introduce another entity in addition to the natural world, one that has no cause, that one can label “God”. No, you can’t label it “God” without being dishonest. Which is, of course why people who use the first cause argument DO usually use the word God; they are hoping people will ignore the little detail that there’s no reason to assume that a hypothetical first cause is anything other than a simple mindless force that very few people would label a god. And being believers they are naturally willing to lie and deceive, since believers by nature have no respect for facts or truth or logic; otherwise, they wouldn’t be believers. If they have to manipulate and deceive to convince people of the truth of the faith, it’s their holy duty to do so. And another solution to Aquina’s claim is to simply say since he claims that his premises about the natural world produce an impossibility, then one or more of those claims must be wrong; not try to justify it with a God pulled out of nowhere. Such as the possibility that there IS an infinite regress, or that some natural events don’t require causes. So no, God isn’t “the only way to resolve this”. This so-called “deep thinker” is just producing thin justifications for conclusions he’s obviously already reached. He defined nature in a way convenient for him, then defined God in a way that solved his false dilemma. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/104 "2009-02-14T03:35:46Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > Perhaps you’ll forgive us whiny atheists when we say that definition is not proof. Ok, but the argument is not meant to demonstrate that God has no cause. That is an assumed part of the definition of what it means to be God. To make his point Dawkins would have to show why necessarily anything that could be considered God must have a cause. He doesn’t do this, so the point is not well made. > [@erislover](#): > > It’s already been mentioned, but it bears repeating. If Aquinas’s proof demonstrates anything–and I’m not sure it does, but if it does–it is that there was some first cause. If he wants to assign three letters to stand for this, that’s his right, but without any additional proofs it is a terrible equivocation to use “god” as the symbol to stand for the first cause, because we all know what “god” means and this proof doesn’t go anywhere towards it. The point of the proof is to show both that there is some first cause in the universe, and that first cause could not be within the universe itself. Therefore the argument, if valid, demonstrates that there is something outside of the universe that formed the first cause. It is this that Aquinas says is God. Ultimately the most important part is not what you call the first mover, but that atheistic naturalism, (ie: the belief that the natural world is all there is) is necessarily false, since it cannot for the existence of the universe. One interesting issue of the prime mover proofs is that they don’t discount polytheism, in that it is possible to have several entities outside of the universe starting many things simultaneously. So it is not necessarily a proof of theism as much as it is a disproof of atheism. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/105 "2009-02-14T03:45:42Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > I don’t really get what you are saying here. Can you elaborate a bit more? What I would say though is that God, especially a God that creates the natural world, cannot be a part of the natural world. This is fundamental to the definition of what it means to be a God. I agree that there are no Gods that exist as part of the natural world. Luckily though that type of God is not the one that Aquinas had in mind. But the distinction between the natural and unnatural worlds is completely arbitrary, which is Dawkins’ whole point. If uncaused causes exist and are triggering things in the natural world, then how are they not a part of it? Why draw a boundary and make them part of a separate sphere? Let’s call everything (natural and unnatural) the Totality and agree that some entities in the Totality don’t have causes. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/106 "2009-02-14T03:50:02Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > The point of the proof is to show both that there is some first cause in the universe, and that first cause could not be within the universe itself. Of course the whole point of calling something “The UNIverse” is that it is the TOTALITY of existence. There is no outside, by definition. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/107 "2009-02-14T03:52:42Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > Ultimately the most important part is not what you call the first mover, but that atheistic naturalism, (ie: the belief that the natural world is all there is) is necessarily false, since it cannot for the existence of the universe. > > Calculon. Untrue. Quantum fluctuations allow for uncaused causes. Ultimately you’re going for a god of the gaps argument. “I don’t know of a phyiscal uncaused event so God did it.” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/108 "2009-02-14T03:52:49Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > Ok, but the argument is not meant to demonstrate that God has no cause. That is an assumed part of the definition of what it means to be God. To make his point Dawkins would have to show why necessarily anything that could be considered God must have a cause. He doesn’t do this, so the point is not well made. That’s not Dawkins’s job. It’s Aquinas’s to prove that God doesn’t need a cause. God can’t solve Aquinas’s false dilemma unless he has no cause; which means God doesn’t qualify as a solution until you come up with evidence that he’s doesn’t need one. > [@Calculon](#): > > Ultimately the most important part is not what you call the first mover, but that atheistic naturalism, (ie: the belief that the natural world is all there is) is necessarily false, since it cannot for the existence of the universe. But it doesn’t. There’s nothing about atheism or “the belief that the natural world is all there is” that demands you believe that everything has a cause, or that the universe is all there is, or that there can’t be an infinite regress of causes. And of course the most important part is the “first mover”; the only reason for the whole argument is to create a false dilemma that can be “solved” by the Christian God. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/109 "2009-02-14T04:05:34Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > I don’t really get what you are saying here. Can you elaborate a bit more? What I would say though is that God, especially a God that creates the natural world, cannot be a part of the natural world. This is fundamental to the definition of what it means to be a God. I agree that there are no Gods that exist as part of the natural world. Luckily though that type of God is not the one that Aquinas had in mind > > Calculon. What a coincidence! The FSM is _ALSO_ not a part of the natural world and so is immune to your logic or analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/110 "2009-02-14T04:13:22Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > Untrue. Quantum fluctuations allow for uncaused causes. Which is one of the reasons the prime mover argument is crap now. It was a much stronger argument in the 13th century, when Aquinas made it, or the 4th century BC when Aristotle made it. Saying that Aquinas was being disingenuous or is stupid in making the argument is a lot like saying that Ptolemy was disingenuous or stupid for saying the sun revolved around the earth. The people you should be criticizing are modern Christians who still try to use is as an argument, not Aquinas for coming up with it. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/111 "2009-02-14T04:20:31Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I think the point being made was, if you want to engage and refute a philosophical argument, you’re more convincing if it appears you actually understand what you’re trying to refute. Dawkins fails at this, at least on occasion. > > Others in this thread are making the argument that philosophy and theology need not enter into the debate over the EOG. Then Dawkins should dismiss such notions out of hand. He doesn’t, and he can’t have it both ways. If he wants to refute Aquinas, he comes off as foolish or dishonest when he misrepresents Aquinas’s proofs. If Aquinas’s work is not worthy of his attention, then don’t give it any. Aquinas’ Five Proofs are not philosphical or theological arguments. They are scientific ones. They’re _feeble_ attempts at science. but science nonetheless. Aquinas is trying to appeal to empirical evidence and logical inference. It’s a scientific thesis. Neither philosphy nor theology enters into it. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/112 "2009-02-14T04:23:55Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Which is one of the reasons the prime mover argument is crap now. It was a much stronger argument in the 13th century, when Aquinas made it, or the 4th century BC when Aristotle made it. Saying that Aquinas was being disingenuous or is stupid in making the argument is a lot like saying that Ptolemy was disingenuous or stupid for saying the sun revolved around the earth. > > The people you should be criticizing are modern Christians who still try to use is as an argument, not Aquinas for coming up with it. Well, yes and no. It wasn’t as bad for him for the reasons you say. But the argument by it’s nature undercuts itself; claiming that God or anything else doesn’t need a cause means you can no longer claim that everything needs a cause. And no, claiming that God is in a special category doesn’t solve this flaw, because if special exceptions are allowed there’s no reason that God is the only one allowed. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/113 "2009-02-14T04:43:36Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Which is one of the reasons the prime mover argument is crap now. It was a much stronger argument in the 13th century, when Aquinas made it, or the 4th century BC when Aristotle made it. Saying that Aquinas was being disingenuous or is stupid in making the argument is a lot like saying that Ptolemy was disingenuous or stupid for saying the sun revolved around the earth. > > The people you should be criticizing are modern Christians who still try to use is as an argument, not Aquinas for coming up with it. Good thing I didn’t do that I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/114 "2009-02-14T05:04:48Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > So for instance I think his problem with Aquinas is that he simply doesn’t understand what Aquinas is saying. Aquinas first three proofs are basically about whether the natural laws alone as we understand them are able to account for all that we see, or whether it is necessary to have some transcendent thing outside of the natural world to form a full explanation of the universe around us. It is this transcendent thing that Aquinas calls God. > > Aquinas first three proofs, in their simplest form, have two premises: > > 1. That every “thing” (be it motion, cause or existing object) is necessarily preceded by some other thing. > 2. It is impossible to have an infinite chain of things that will necessarily extend back to infinite time. Both of these premises are wrong. > [@](#): > > Therefore he comes to the conclusion: > There must be some origin of these things that is not accounted for by natural processes. This thing is by definition “God” His conclusion is based on false premises. His label of “God” is also a non-sequitur. > [@](#): > > Dawkins two objections, as best I can see are: > > 1. God is not immune to the same questions of origin. Or in Dawkins words “… make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress.” > 2. The argument does nothing to define the properties of God. These are not Dawkins main objectons. Dawkins’ main objections are the same as everyone else who’s ever critiqued Aquinas – his \*premises are false.[//i] Everything does NOT need a cause, and it is NOT impossible to have an infinite chain. It is ALSO true that God is another regression, and it’s ALSO true that Aquinas has no justification for calling his First Cause “God,” but those are not the main objections. The main objections are that Aquinas is talking out of his ass when he sets up his premises. > [@](#): > > The first objection Dawkins raises does nothing to invalidate the premises of Aquinas argument. Aquinas’ premises are invalid on their face. It’s true that Dawkins should have taken the time to point that out in his section on Aquinas, but he’s just pointing out that even IF Aquinas was not wrong about his premises, his conclusion would still be regressive, tautological and unwarranted. > [@](#): > > Aquinas defines God to be that which has no pre-existing thing before it. Therefore by Aquinas definitions he is absolutely justified in saying that God is immune from regress. Sheer tautology, and logical gibberish. > [@](#): > > Further, if we say that God is not immune from regress, then we find ourselves back in the infinite chain of causes. God needs a cause, and then God’s cause needs a cause and so on. If the second premise of Aquinas argument is true, this must terminate somewhere and we can then define that somewhere as “God”. The thing is you can’t just SAY God is not subject to regression, you have explain why God is immune when nothing else is. To say that God is immune is to say that the universe is immune. You can’t assert an axiom, and then assert an exception to that axiom with no justification. Trying to build the exception into your definition is a fallacy. > [@](#): > > The second objection is just entirely irrelevant. As has been pointed out Aquinas did not intend to derive the properties of God through that argument save for his existence, so the criticism is neither here nor there. You can’t posit the existence of God without giving it the properties of God. God IS the properties. Aquinas most certainly DID intend for his use of the word “God” to be taken _prima facie_, as the Christian God, and never tries to say otherwise. > [@](#): > > If Dawkins were to show that Aquinas argument is false, he must attack the premises that the argument is based on. The premises are false on their face, but it’s true Dawkins should have said that in his critique of Aquinas. It does not mean, however, that his other objections are invalid, nor does his failure to tell the class that Aquinas’ premises are bullshit mean they aren’t still bullshit. > [@](#): > > So for premise 1 if you could show that there are some natural things that are not preceded by other things, that would invalidate the argument. So for instance in the argument of first causes one could point out that quantum mechanics suggests that there are some events, such as nuclear decay, that happen without direct cause, and therefore the infinite chain is broken. > Likewise the second premise could be attacked if you could show that it is possible to have an infinite chain of things. So for instance if the universe always existed and therefore had no real beginning, it may be possible to have an infinite chain. Unfortunately modern cosmology is not shaping up that way, but it is still another tactic in invalidating the argument. > > Dawkins does none of this, and therefore the only real conclusion is that either he doesn’t understand the argument, or that he has simply glossed over it because he has no real answers. > > Calculon. It doesn’t mean that he doesn’t understand the argument (and an infinate chain is not invalidated by the Big Bang, by the way, just so you know. Also, Aquinas didn’t know about the Big bang, so his assertion that an infinite chain was impossible was baseless), it just means he was selective about what part to attack. Dawkins objections are both dead on balls accurate, but it’s true his treatment is incomplete. It is _not_, however, dishonest. He in no way misrepresents Aquinas’ arguments as the OP alleges. I also think it’s interesting that the OP skipped right over Dawkins’ critiques of Aquinas’ Argument from Design (Dawkins’ sweet spot if ever there was one), or his truly ludicrous Argument from Degree. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/115 "2009-02-14T05:34:34Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > Untrue. Quantum fluctuations allow for uncaused causes. > > Ultimately you’re going for a god of the gaps argument. “I don’t know of a phyiscal uncaused event so God did it.” I already pointed that out in my original post in this thread, so well done 🙂 The main question of the thread though, as I understand the OP, is not whether Aquinas was right, but whether Dawkins’ dismissal of him is philosophically rigourous. Since this is not something that Dawkins points out, I would say the answer is no. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/116 "2009-02-14T05:37:13Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > But the distinction between the natural and unnatural worlds is completely arbitrary, which is Dawkins’ whole point. If uncaused causes exist and are triggering things in the natural world, then how are they not a part of it? Why draw a boundary and make them part of a separate sphere? Let’s call everything (natural and unnatural) the Totality and agree that some entities in the Totality don’t have causes. Sigh. No, the distinction is not arbitrary. This is one of the frustrating things I find reading Dawkins. He is such a staunch naturalist that it seems impossible to him that there is anything outside of natural world. Let me ask you this. If there is a God that created the universe (by which I mean all of the material things resulting from the big bang), and indeed existed before the universe, are they also a part of the universe that they created? And if they are a part of the universe in what sense are they a creator if they are part of that same universe? Maybe if I explain in terms of set theory. There aer two sets, set A which encompasses all material things and whose members follow the set laws of nature, and set B which encompases all non-material things which do not follow the set laws of nature as we understand them. The union of these two sets forms the totality of existence, set C. Atheism is therefore the claim that set B is a null set containing no members, and that set A and C are completely equivalent. Aquinas was trying to show that given the known properties of the members of set A, set A cannot explain it’s own existence. Set B must necessarily have one or more members for set A to logically exist. The distinction between God and the natural world is entirely meaningful in the context of the argument, and therefore I think Dawkins’ objection is baseless. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/117 "2009-02-14T05:43:19Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Both of these premises are wrong. > > His conclusion is based on false premises. His label of “God” is also a non-sequitur. > > These are not Dawkins main objectons. Dawkins’ main objections are the same as everyone else who’s ever critiqued Aquinas – his \*premises are false.[//i] Everything does NOT need a cause, and it is NOT impossible to have an infinite chain. I don’t seem to remember Dawkins expressly making that point. Care to give a quote where he talks about why these premises are wrong? Alternatively if you can’t find a satasfactory quote, can you at least explain why you personally believe them to be false. I understand that you think them false “on the face of it”, but I would like to hear your actual reasoning. Without reasoning all you are really offering is proof by vigourous assertion. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/118 "2009-02-14T06:03:39Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > I don’t seem to remember Dawkins expressly making that point. Care to give a quote where he talks about why these premises are wrong? No. I made a mistake there. I thought I remembered the book differently than I did. I went back and checked, and found that I had misremembered. I must have read him attacking those premises somewhere else and thought I’d read it in TGD. I actually went through my post before I submitted it and edited out some similar comments to what you quoted so I wouldn’t make an ass of myself, but I missed that one. > [@](#): > > Alternatively if you can’t find a satasfactory quote, can you at least explain why you personally believe them to be false. I understand that you think them false “on the face of it”, but I would like to hear your actual reasoning. Without reasoning all you are really offering is proof by vigourous assertion. Largely for the reasons you mentioned. Quantum physics does not adhere to those premises. Aquinas is also wrong even under Newtonian standards when he says that an object in motion must have been set in motion by something else. Newton’s First Law of Motion refutes that. As I also said in my point by point critique of Aquinas on the first page of this thread, Aquinas offers no justification for his claim that the chain of cause and effect can’t be infinite. There is, in fact, nothing in either Newtonian or Quantum physics which prohibits an infinite chain of cause and effect. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/119 "2009-02-14T07:57:47Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Aquinas’ Five Proofs are not philosphical or theological arguments. They are scientific ones. They’re _feeble_ attempts at science. but science nonetheless. Aquinas is trying to appeal to empirical evidence and logical inference. It’s a scientific thesis. Neither philosphy nor theology enters into it. Your definition of philosophy and theology is pretty arbitrary then. Logical inference and empiricism have no place in philosophy? I’ll alert my alma mater; they’ll need to rework a great deal of the curriculum. But it’s irrelevant anyway, I think. Aquinas’s assertions–however you categorize them–are not best refuted by misstating them. If his assertions are not worthy of argument, don’t argue ‘em. If they are, engage his actual arguments. That’s Dawkins’ error. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591/120 "2009-02-14T08:31:36Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Your definition of philosophy and theology is pretty arbitrary then. Logical inference and empiricism have no place in philosophy? I’m saying that philosophy is not necessary to empiricism and inference. Science can play a role in philosophy, but that doesn’t mean philosophy has to play a role in science. “God exists because everything needs a cause,” is a scientific assertion, not a philosophical one. > [@](#): > > But it’s irrelevant anyway, I think. Aquinas’s assertions–however you categorize them–are not best refuted by misstating them. If his assertions are not worthy of argument, don’t argue ‘em. If they are, engage his actual arguments. That’s Dawkins’ error. Dawkins did not misstate them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-lies-of-richard-dawkins-episode-6-saint-thomas-aquinas/485591.md?page=7)